Skip to main content
Nuclear Safety Cooperation

U2.01/94 Engineer for VVER 1000 part 2

All Countries
Benefitting Zone
€ 201,056.69
EU Contribution
Contracted in 1997
Technical Assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States


Type of activity

Design Safety



Contracting authority

European Commission

Method of Procurement

(FR2007) Restricted Call for Tender - External Actions


14/01/1998 - 14/02/2000



Project / Budget year

WW9508 Nuclear Safety 1995 / 1995


In the framework of the improvement of the performance and the enhancement of the engineering capabilities of the nuclear design Kiev Institute "Energoproject" (KIEP), the EC funded some projects to:

reinforce the calculation-analysis engineering processes at KlEP by means of computer codes
develop and implement their Quality Assurance System
To carry out this aim, the EC awarded the U2.01/93B TACIS project as a first stage (see the relevant project summary), in which KlEP carried out the selection of computer codes for several nuclear applications, such as thermohydraulic analysis, probabilistic risk assessment, radiation protection, etc. and started the implementation of a Quality Assurance System.

The second stage, which was developed under the project U2.01/94A (Contract 97-0672) (see the relevant project summary), awarded to the Consortium formed by Empresarios Agrupados (Leader), Siemens, Belgatom and Framatome, was the continuation of the first step, through the following tasks:

Supply of the selected computer codes, engineering support, training and related hardware
Completion of the implementation of the KlEP Quality Assurance System.
A third part (this project) aimed at consolidating the KIEP QA programme developed and approved during the Part 1 of the project, and ensure that it was adequately implemented, both at corporate level and in the execution of the projects.

The contract foresaw a local subcontractor to perform part of the work, aiming to maximise the involvement of the Ukrainian specialists in the project activities and thus enhancing the transfer of know-how.

The general framework of the project, as presented in the ToR, defined one Task. Taking into account the results of the first part of the project, both the Contractor and KIEP developed a technical proposal and presented it in the document ‘Proposal for contents of consolidation phase’, corresponding to the main orientation for the second part of the project.


The generic objective of the project was the consolidation of the KIEP QA Programme, developed and improved during Part 1 of the Project, ensuring that it is being adequately implemented, both on the corporate level and in the execution of the projects.

The specific objectives of the project were defined as follows:

Present the new QA system to the involved KIEP personnel so that they will be in a position to apply the new QA programme;
Assess the enforcement of the new system at the KIEP personnel.


The start-up of Part 2 of the project differed from a usual start-up of TACIS projects: the kick-off meeting of the project Part 2 was held before completion of Part 1 of the project and was used as an opportunity to present and discuss the planned project activities as well as to agree on a number of necessary modifications for successful implementation of Part 2.

The project was organized in the following tasks:

Presentation of the new QA System to their appropriate personnel so that they will be in a position to apply the new QA programme
QA System implementation
Four audits on KIEP QA System
Identification of non-conformances and proposal of corrective actions
Contractor plus KIEP: Provision of technical support in the application of the KIEP QA System by means of participation in QA activities with KIEP (mainly audits, Design Review process and the review of the QA System by the KIEP Management) and proposal of recommendations
Follow-up of the methods adopted to solve non-conformances, for personnel training and corrective actions
Four reports were developed containing the following sections:

the activities carried out and identifying the degree of system implementation
the non-conformances detected
the corrective actions proposed
The four reports had the same content and were issued after each audit on the KIEP QA System

The most relevant activities carried out in the framework of each task are summarised in the following.

KlEP Activities

The KIEP activities were split into three main steps: training, analysis of the implementation and proposals of improvement (specific) for the QA program.

The training was carried out using the waterfall method. The first training courses to the first levels of the KIEP Organization Chart were completed during the previous phases of the project. These levels, supported by KIEP QA department, transferred requirements and methodology of the new QA System to their personnel, who in turn trained personnel under their responsibility.

An Indoctrination Plan was Issued and applied by KIEP in order to ensure that the new QA System was shown to all KIEP people working with QA related activities. Records of this training were prepared.

The KIEP QA Department, through internal audits on both corporate activities and projects, carried out an analysis of the QA System implementation. At the beginning of the project, the following three pilot projects were selected for implementing the QA System projects:

Environmental Impact Assessment of the Khmelnitsky NPP Unit 2
Nuclear Safety Report for Rovno NPP Units 1 and 2
Power Generation and Heating Plant for Kiev City
To officially declare the establishment of the new Quality System, KIEP issued a special order.

Furthermore an Annual Audit Plan was issued by KIEP to ensure that all-corporate activities and selected projects were audited and surveyed. Audit Reports were issued and filed after each audit.

The proposals for improvement were the product of periodical meetings held by the KIEP Quality Committee, at which analyses were carried out on the results of audits carried out by the KIEP Quality Department and any other kind of QA System implementation feedback from the Departments. Records of these meetings were issued and filed.

Two kinds of improvement proposals were made. Those aimed at the improvement and modification of the requirements of QA System documentation (QA Manual, Procedures or Instructions), and those aimed at the extensive and in-depth implementation of the existing QA System. It was intended to implement both kinds of proposals.

Consortium Activities

With the support and supervision of the Consortium, KlEP carried out the above-mentioned activities through quarterly meetings in Kiev, each with two weeks duration.

During each visit of the Consortium, an analysis was carried out on the activities planned and developed during the last quarter. This follow-up and supervision was carried out through an auditing process.

The audits were carried out in a maximum period of one week per visit. Before conducting the audit itself, the status of non-conformances and corrective actions identified in previous visits was reviewed. The remaining time in each visit was spent to support KIEP in solving doubts or problems regarding QA implementation and to assist KlEP personnel in the preparation and development of design reviews, internal audits and the Management quality system review.

At the end of each visit, a report was issued. These reports describe the activities carried out and identify the degree of system implementation, non-conformances detected and the corrective actions proposed, which contribute to the total and efficient implementation of the quality system and the identification of objectives for continued improvement.

A KIEP delegation composed of top management .representatives paid a visit to Empresarios Agrupados headquarters in Madrid. During the visit, Empresarios Agrupados provided KIEP top managers with direct input on the ISO 9001 certification process: preparation, problems, solutions, budget, expenses, etc. A report on the activities was issued.


The results of the last audit, carried out at the end of November 1999, show that there are a few items that should be improved in the KIEP QA System. However, these deviations do not affect the good QA System implementation process.

Both KIEP and Contractor considered that:

KlEP top Management was fully involved in the new QA System. Quality Committee meetings have proven to be very effective in the QA System implementation process
KIEP had QA System documentation that included a QA Manual and a set of Procedures and Instructions that are in accordance with ISO 900 1, IAEA - 50-C-SG-Q and Ukrainian Regulations, and are consistent with the work methodology of KIEP
KIEP assessed that their personnel are familiar with the new QA requirements and the new work methodology
KIEP demonstrated that the new QA requirements are implemented and consolidated in accordance with KlEP practice
The KIEP QA System was prepared for both the QA certification process by the competent Ukraine Organisation and the IQNET Certification according to ISO 9001 for a registered accreditation board

The IQNET certificate was considered to be of top priority because this would open the door for KIEP for future collaboration with other engineering companies in Western Europe, increasing KIEP experience and improving their engineering capabilities in nuclear design

4) Comments (Quality of the results, Lesson learnt, Recommendations for follow-up)

The project met the objectives stated in the TORs and represented a major step forward in both the improvement of the quality system in Ukraine and in the development of autonomous, state-of-the-art capabilities in the assessment of nuclear safety.

The project was structured in such a way that it can be easily transferred to other Ukrainian engineering institutions and other Eastern countries engineering companies. In this sense it is consider that the project has a clear replicability.

As a follow-up of this project, KIEP planned to apply for a certification of its QA System compliant with ISO 9001-94.

5) Further Information

Further information on the project results could be sought from the beneficiary organizations.